tv [untitled] August 22, 2010 6:30pm-7:00pm PST
things in here that are not exactly lighting up with my memory -- lining up with my memory. >> the question to you by commissioner garcia was that there was a statement that there is evidence or findings here that occured after the board hearings. do you want to address that question? >> i would rather do it in writing, but the police department physically came out to our office. the only thing they are allowed to do by law is look at the records and make copies. two cops came out, you have a letter from my secretary, they called their sergeant, and he is the one who wrote -- and they were there, but that is in my response. he said, they're allowed to copy
them. president peterson: do you have any objection to the proposal that you sense something in writing? >> that would be great. i am very bitter and angry, and it is nice to see somebody else besides the police department. this guy could not be used at anything, and he is the chief witness against me, and it is all personal. >> you had these findings sent to you? you have a copy? >> yes, sir. >> " what letter. -- what letter?
>> they said 3 minutes. they said it was a proper venue, we had three minutes. if you want something in writing, we will give you something in writing. commissioner garcia: we still have to vote. >> is there not an opportunity to submit -- to submit written response to the findings? >> there is an opportunity. we asked both sides to review them and let us know if there are any errors or corrections, or opinions they have about it. there is no limitation to a three-minute rebuttal. we don't allow the parties to submit additional briefing to the board, but we try and correct any mistakes and get all the information from the parties before we provide them to you. if there are any problems, we
can review them. >> in response to this particular set of findings, the received any comments? >> i did receive a comment, and he says that he did not agree with them. it was a telephone conversation. he did not agree with them, and that was just a general statement. there is no specific reference to any -- he did not believe the evidence supported these allegations or these findings. commissioner garcia: i don't feel comfortable adopting findings without further briefing. if there are no comments, i would make a motion to continue this until such time that we can
get additional briefing on what his objections are to walk us through the presentation. >> to the findings. commissioner garcia: exactly. president peterson: it seems that we may not have full people here until october 13. commissioner garcia: no one is prejudiced by putting it off that long, are they? president peterson: is that a motion to continue until october 13? >> commissioner garcia, i am not interested in seeing the materials from the hearing itself. i am interested in a specific response to these findings only? is that correct? commissioner garcia: that is absolutely correct. what is normal for findings?
no limit? >> is not typical to have written response. commissioner garcia: maybe i am the only one with a problem. >> it shouldn't be more than the findings themselves. four pages, do you want to set a four-page lament -- limit? commissioner garcia: i think the surgeon wants to address this. >> i don't know if i will be involved in this matter in october, and i don't know whether we would respond in writing to anything that is put forward here. but i do know that i will be on vacation for all of october. thank you.
>> madden director, -- madame director, we have the ability to review this either september 8 or september 22. >> we can move forward with four members, and commissioner fung, i wasn't sure if you were going to be here on the twenty second. >> we can take this up with four members if not sooner. >commissioner garcia: i don't se any harm done if it is earlier or later, so let's go to november. november 3 would be great.
>> to the motion is to of continue this to november 3 to get a briefing at, a maximum of four pages by both sides, and it concerns about the accuracy of the findings themselves, is that correct? >> it is accuracy of the findings based upon the facts that were already presented in the briefing in the oral argument to this board, not new fact that we have not heard? commissioner garcia: unless someone is responding to what he considers to be new facts that are in the findings that have to do with a date that is after the hearing.
>> i don't think we have done this before. so i am confused. >> all of the issues -- i don't know about the rest of the board, but i could not follow the findings as certain issues came up to check for accuracy. i am just not sure. when someone objects, we can check again against the findings. >> shall we have a brief due to weeks -- two weeks prior? commissioner garcia: sure. >> that won't work for you since you are gone in october? mr. garcia, should we move it later into november?
commissioner garcia: please. >> if we move it to november 17, we will have a missing commissioner. we can take that date any way are we can move it to december 8. commissioner garcia: let's go for december 8. >> let's not. i want to resolve this issue. let me state that these findings reflect my memory of the proceeding and what was discussed. commissioner garcia: did you want to make an alternate motion? we might require another motion. >> is this the december 8 date?
>> i wonder if we can engage in a little more deliberation if you don't mind, commissioners. it seems that in most cases, the losing party will object to our findings, and so it seems that the thing that sets this one apart is a couple of commissioners sense that the findings don't reflect their own recollection of what occurred at the hearing, is that right? am i understanding that? commissioner garcia: some of this is a little bit subjective. and a little more descriptive than the typical finding, which is statements of law or of the code and how someone was in violation of the code, but without my going into any specifics, i have some problems
with the language. part of the problem is, this hearing was april 14. it is not fresh in my memory, so when objections were raised again, i was not able to say, i remember that, she's wrong, i wasn't able to fully follow. i don't want to adopt findings when a couple of issues are hanging in my mind. >> i would support a motion to continue so that everyone feels comfortable. >> what might make sense is that if in addition to the findings, perhaps if we had the transcript of the hearing in front of us. >> you can stream it online. >> into the transcripts are available on line also. >> at the closed captioning.
-- the closed captioning. >> my objection is not that this appellant be given a second opportunity to respond to findings that he has had, the case has been out there for quite a long time. my objection is that it is another four months because of scheduling. i would ask commissioner garcia to reconsider and schedule this for september 8. commissioner garcia: maybe the confusion is that i don't know if that -- if anyone is at all harmed by when we hear this. am i missing something? are there any consequences to us doing it tonight or doing it in december?
>> i don't think it would be proper for us to respond to specific and new allegations, having time to consider and respond to it. the city attorney's office -- we should seek the advice from the city attorney's office says there is litigation out there, a couple of lawsuits that i don't know if it will impact that. if there is new documents that are filed, i think it would be prudent for the police department to consult the city attorney's office, and given the fact that there is pending litigation. >> this is not an opportunity for the appellant to reach your his case. >> i think you run the risk of having that happen. commissioner garcia: i think we
are capable of dealing with that and cutting that off. >> i don't know what the police department -- i don't know if the police department should respond at all. if what is being considered here is the written findings in the accuracy of those written findings, the police -- and the police department is good with those written findings and we don't expect in any way to offer suggestions to amend it. maybe this is a dispute or some issue that needs to be dealt with with the city attorney's office. commissioner garcia: i didn't want you to be prejudiced by the fact that your out of town in october. >> if the police department needs to respond, and i don't know at this point in time whether it is reasonable that we do or do not respond, then we
need to be able to. however, if what you're going to roll is that this is strictly a claim that the written document is not accurate, all the things that were dealt with at the hearing, then maybe we are not in a position where we should respond. commissioner garcia: you know i can't into that, right? >> i have never had to respond to an issue like this. commissioner garcia: i'm hoping that what i get is that in paragraph one, the statement is wrong, period. i will have watched the hearing again, i will look at the findings as written and consider what he wrote, and i will say,
and no is not wrong or yes, it is wrong. assuming the votes are there, we might change something. it is not a new hearing. we're not granting a rehearing. my frustration is that we didn't get something in writing from him in the first place-i don't know how to respond to that. commissioner garcia: now i can't vote on findings that i am not totally comfortable with. president peterson: we may not need all five of us here to do this. if one commissioner is uncomfortable with the delay -- i know that i am not here september 8 and you don't necessarily need me on september 8. commissioner garcia: i agree with commissioner fung that the
sooner, the better. if our calendar is not too crowded, that would be an excellent day. president peterson: how about september 15? >> there is a motion to continue this item is a tender 15, correct? with additional briefing of four pages maximum, due two weeks prior. commissioner garcia: i apologize for other members of the commission, i did not intend for this to be drawn out. president peterson: no one is required to submit a brief, and it is up to the department to find if they think it is necessary.
>> the motion is from commissioner garcia to continue this matter to september 15, 2010 to allow the parties time to respond in writing to the proposed findings on that motion? commissioner fung: aye. commissioner goh: aye. president peterson: aye. sorry. commissioner hwang: aye. >> this matter is continued to september 15. president peterson: we have a final set of findings to consider, will you call item 4c, please. >> another adoption of findings pertaining to the revocation of tax medallion and color scheme permanent. decided july 14, 2010.
at that time, the board voted 4- 1 with commissioner hwang dissenting to uphold the revocation of color scheme permit and overrule the revocation of medallion on condition that said medallion be suspended for one year with adoption of findings at a later time. president peterson: the appellant does not like the findings. i don't know if anybody is here, is anybody here representing mr. hollis? they were very well apprised of this evening, i explained that if they had no objection they could come here. they do not appear to be here. >> and there is nothing in writing specific to their objections? >> she did not believe that the allegations supported the ultimate decision to suspend and
revoke. president peterson: nothing more specific than that? >> mr. hollis double checked that the time would go for 10 days? they're waiting to request a rehearing. president peterson: is there any public comment on these findings? scene 9, the matter is submitted. -- seeing none, thematter -- the matter is submitted. commissioner garcia: i move that we adopt as written. >> on the motion to adopt the findings with no changes. commissioner fung: aye. commissioner goh: aye. president peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: aye.
5-0 to adopt. >> item #5 has been withdrawn, so we will move on to item no. 6. >> calling item six, the minimart verses the department of public health. it is the appeal of a 25-day suspension of an establishment permit imposed on june 9, 2010. the reason for suspension is selling tobacco products to minors. president peterson: you have seven minutes. >> i am here representing the department of public health on the matter. the department of public health
found that they were doing business at the minimart. located in san francisco, they violated the san francisco health code, and the california penal code. his store sold cigarettes to a minor on april 242010. -- 24, 2010. the cigarrettes, an agent of the apellant. the apellant later identified the clerk as his father-in-law. he did not ask the minor for age and identification and sold a pack of cigarrettes to the
minor. they asked who was with the undercover minor at that time. the officer returned and issued a citation to the clerk for follow-up. on june 9, 2010, session 1009.66 of the san francisco health code, the establishment of 25 days, they're appealing that decision. it is worth saying here that the san francisco health code allows the suspension of the permit for
tobacco sales for up to 90 days. the appellant states that his father-in-law suffers from poor vision, hearing, and a judgment, and should not be held accountable for the sale. and that it would be financial hardships. [unintelligible] it is reasonable, and the department adds that the board denied the appeal and uphold the 25 day suspension. president peterson: can we hear from the appellant now? or the agent?
is so bad. i would like to see a minor reduction to 20 days. commissioner garcia: i would certainly support that for the reasons you stated and obviously because the person who sold the cigarettes to the minor is here before us, and he is everything that was described in the papers. he is an elderly gentleman and very possibly made a mistake. unintentionally. commissioner fung: if there is no further comment, i note to overall department and reduce the spam 20 days. -- i move to overrule the department. and reduce it to 20 days.
president peterson: thank you. mr. pacheco: on that motion, vice president goh, commissioner garcia, president peterson, commissioner hwang. thank you. the vote is for-1. it is overruled. president peterson: we will move on to the next item. mr. pacheco,ñ7 if you could read the next item. >> item number 7, to erect a
with 1325 square feet of ground floor area. the matter was continued to allow the current person additional time pursuant to board comments. commissioner hwang: madam president, i want to disclose that i live in the same neighborhood. there are comments from the homeowners' association. they are not the party of interest. i believe i can carry on my duties without bias and do so objectively. also, i am not in the zone where we automatically reduce ourselves in the matter before us -- recuse ourselves. president peterson: all right,